dark light

Isengard

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2224920
    Isengard
    Participant

    T-50 patent say inlet is usable to mach 3. F-22 and J-20 inlet is fixed not variable like in T-50.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLoJMz3AkM

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2226076
    Isengard
    Participant

    Just two planes, T-50 is clearly much sleeker and will have lower drag. F-22 use abfterburner a lot in airshows.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2226081
    Isengard
    Participant

    A: 2010.
    B: Those numbers has been repeated ad infinitum without any proof attached to them at all.
    C: No reason to believe any of it, at all.

    Pogo did say what range it will have on supercruise and max, but i can’t remember from top of my head. In other news, 710 has resumed flight…

    EDIT; Actually it has been only taxiing so far. New engine? We shall see…

    we kno T-50 will fly faster then F-22. T-50 has blended fuselage and much sleeker then F-22 and higher sweep angle. it have two peice canopy that take more heat so can go faster. look at both plains and you easily see T-50 is much thinner and lower drag.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=220907&d=1379496513

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2226362
    Isengard
    Participant

    http://lenta.ru/news/2010/07/12/popovkin/

    2600 kmph speed, 5500 km range of PAK-FA.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2227295
    Isengard
    Participant

    Somehow I doubt they have info on the F-22 and J-20’s inlet performance, engine performance, material limits, exact airfoil specification, etc. It’s even more laughable in the case of the J-20 because Chengdu hasn’t even finalized the design, yet Zelin already proclaims higher max speed for the T-50? Give me a break.

    I say Zelin’s claim is about as good as a USAF general calling the T-50 4.5 gen.

    T-50 have a blended fuselage. While it have much bigger relative wing area it’s profile is reminescent of SR-71. it is much sleeker and bigger fineness ratio than F-22 and also have higher wing sweep.

    Also T-50 have 2 piece canopy with frame and use silica glass that can withstand heat and stress better then F-22 one piece polycarb canopy. this also indicate higher speed of T-50. original speed requirement is mach 2.6 it was reduced slightly but still faster then F-22.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229186
    Isengard
    Participant

    Zelin in general is not a reliable source on anything.

    Zelin is former head of RUAF so how he not reliable?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2229941
    Isengard
    Participant

    Those who rail on the T-50’s use of radar blockers conveniently forget that Boeing’s JSF submission would also have used blockers, not to mention that the EMD F-23 probably would’ve had them as well.

    Of course, none of this means that s-ducts are obsolete, or vice versa. It all depends on the overall design. Obviously there’s more than one solution to a problem.

    Try the head of the RuAF.

    head of RUAF Alexander Zelin said T-50 has higher max speed and supercruise than F-22 and J-20. it will also have higher g load so more manuverable.
    http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-21/news/31083134_1_t-50-fighter-jets-fgfa

    Victor Bondarev also say the T-50 is superior in most areas than F-22.
    http://rbth.com/news/2015/01/24/russian_air_force_to_start_receiving_5th-generation_fighters_in_2016_43125.html

    analysis here shows why the T-50 is a better aircraft than the raptor.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqLoJMz3AkM

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2230251
    Isengard
    Participant

    why not? How do you kno?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2230311
    Isengard
    Participant

    what is the goal ?

    should be mach 1.9 – mach 2 supercruise.

    in reply to: how will lasers affect air power? #2247871
    Isengard
    Participant

    Lasers will make gun the most important weapon in air to air combat. Lasers can defeat heat seaking missiles and frequency memory jamming will defeat radar missiles, so gun and manuverbility will dominate future air battles.

    in reply to: Russian offensive in Ukraine #2226415
    Isengard
    Participant

    Hollande maybe a cumquat, but you would be disappointed indeed if France was ran by the same gang that Russia is.

    Can you be more specific about how Putin and the Kremlin are being “thieves”? While there may be some corruption in the Russian government, this is hardly unique to Russia and I don’t think it even approaches the US with their corporate “lobbying”. Lockmart is the perfect example of military industrial complex running out of control.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2235319
    Isengard
    Participant

    An engine optimized for superiority at 80,000 feet is going to be a dog at 24,000 feet in comparison. There is no magic pixie dust to make one work in both regimes right now. I think the game going forward is all about kinematic performance above all previous fighters at least 60,000 feet and above. You not only have to reach the upper limits, you need to manuever there as well.

    Or the engines can be powerful enough that it can allow the T-50 to operate at 79,000+ ft even without being optimized at that altitude.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXIV #2235713
    Isengard
    Participant

    Something I noticed.

    http://www.paralay.com/pakfa/pakfa.html

    “…Так на испытаниях этой весной (2013 год) при полной загрузке топливом и массогабаритными макетами вооружений 4-й борт (054) взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135 км/ч и максимальной – 2610 км/ч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24 300 метров – дальше не пустили”

    “… So to test this spring (2013) with a full load of fuel and the weight and size mock-ups of arms 4th board (054) took off from the 310 meters, reached a cruising speed of 2135 km / h and the maximum – 2610 km / h, while the was more overclocking potential, as well as climbed to 24,300 meters – more is not allowed “

    The given altitude reflects the goal of breaking an area of coverage of air defense Patriot PAC3 MIM-104F Flight altitude 79,500 feet (24,200 m).

    in reply to: Malaysian Airlineus 777 shot down over Ukraine #2285958
    Isengard
    Participant

    Okay …. the big picture involves asking how this started: who stirred it up?

    Is it not true that the US, by appointing Victoria Nuland, the neo-con, as its top European State Dept. official — and then licensing her to try to convert Ukraine to NATO, is it not true that this is primary seed of the Russian reaction? The US mindlessly(?) kept its Cold War drive for NATO expansion right under the Russian skin.

    As a lifelong peace advocate and one who detests violence I’m having a hard time imagining how or why Russia might have interpreted the monstrous, aggressive Nuland initiative differently.

    We could have a peaceful, useful US-Russian world — were it not for those Americans seeking to dominate Russia.

    in reply to: Naval deployment to Black Sea? #2030318
    Isengard
    Participant

    http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/

    It seems like there are serious holes in American warship defence ability.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)